JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Appellant has assailed judgment dated 28.03.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 4-1/2005, acquitting- respondents under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC in case FIR No. 173/04 dated 09.10.2014, Police Station Indora. 2. During intervening night between 13th and 14 August, 2004, Rekha Devi daughter of PW-1 Ranjit Singh had consumed aluminum phosphide in the house of her in-law’s. She was rushed to private Clinic and then to Mehta Nursing Home, Pathankot. PW-14 Sukhbir Singh was asked by husband of deceased to inform her parents about illness of deceased Rekha Devi. Upon his information, PW-1 Ranjit Singh, his wife and his brother had accompanied PW-14 Sukhbir Singh to Pathankot. On coming to know that Rekha had expired and had been taken by respondents to their house, they were taken there by PW-14 Sukhbir Singh to her in-law’s house. 3. The matter was reported to police by PW-1 Ranjit Singh on telephone which was reduced into Rapat No. 7 dated 14.08.2004 Ext. PW-19/A in Police Station Indora. Thereafter PW-1 Ranjit Singh had made statement Ext. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C., to the police on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW-19/B was registered and investigation was carried out. 4. During investigation, the dead body of deceased Rekha was sent for postmortem. Stomach small and large intestine, liver, kidney and clothes of deceased were sent for chemical examination. As per chemical examiner report Ext. PX, Aluminum Phosphide was found in stomach, liver, kidney and clothes of deceased. On the basis of chemical examiner report, it was opined by medical officer that cause of death to cardio respiratory arrest was due to Aluminum Phosphide poison. Four bruises were also noticed on the body of the deceased as per postmortem report Ext. PW-18/B. 5. As per prosecution case, clothes of deceased stained with vomiting of deceased were recovered on the basis of disclosure statement Ext. PW-7/B made by respondent Bimla Devi vide recovery memo Ext. PW-13/A. On the basis of disclosure statement of respondent Rajesh Singh Ext. PW-7/A under Section 27 of India Evidence Act, a writing on paper and his clothes were recovered at his instance vide memo Ext. PW-13/B from an Almirah of a room. Register containing admitted hand writing of deceased was also recovered at the instance of respondent Rajesh Singh. 6. Copy of Parivar register Ext. PW-7/A under Section 27 of India Evidence Act, a writing on paper and his clothes were recovered at his instance vide memo Ext. PW-13/B from an Almirah of a room. Register containing admitted hand writing of deceased was also recovered at the instance of respondent Rajesh Singh. 6. Copy of Parivar register Ext. PW-15/C was also obtained by Investigating Officer according to which respondent Bir Singh was living separately from his two sons, namely, Pawan Singh and Rajesh Singh. Both sons of Bir Singh were also living separately from each other. After completion of investigation challan was put in Court against respondents. 7. Respondent No.1 was father in law of deceased who has expired on 10.12.2013 during the pendency of present appeal and as such appeal qua him has abated. Respondent No. 2 is husband of the deceased, respondent No. 3 is Jaithani (wife of brother of respondent No. 2) and respondent No. 4 is mother in law of the deceased. 8. In his statement Ext. PW-1/A, PW-1 has stated that his daughter deceased Rekha was married to respondent Rajesh Kumar on 5th March, 2002. She was pursuing her MA from Dharamshala and her in laws were asking to pay expenses of studies which was accepted and paid by him. But despite that in-law’s of his daughter were harassing and beating her for bringing money from parents. The delivery of deceased was due in April, 2005 and on 28.11.2004 her father in-law Bir Singh had left her in parents’ house by saying that either construct a house for her or they will divorce. PW-1 Ranjit Singh had conveyed this to maternal uncle of daughter PW-2 Om Prakash. Despite delivery of child in month of April, 2005, no one from in-laws of deceased Rekha had come even on sending message in the month of May, 2005. Thereupon PW-1 Ranjeet Singh had visited house of Bir Singh at Bharnoli accompanied by PW-2 Om Prakash PW-6 Udham Singh R/o Dandwa. On their persuasion Bir Singh and his family had agreed to take deceased Rekha to their home. On 30.05.2004 respondent Rajesh had telephonically called Om Prakash to come at a place known as Moki, upon which PW-1, PW-2 Om Prakash and PW-4 Arjun Singh had reached Moki where Bir Singh, Rajesh, Bimla and Ex-Pradhan Karam Singh etc. were present. On their persuasion Bir Singh and his family had agreed to take deceased Rekha to their home. On 30.05.2004 respondent Rajesh had telephonically called Om Prakash to come at a place known as Moki, upon which PW-1, PW-2 Om Prakash and PW-4 Arjun Singh had reached Moki where Bir Singh, Rajesh, Bimla and Ex-Pradhan Karam Singh etc. were present. After conversation, it was agreed upon that in-laws of deceased would take deceased Rekha to their home on 02.06.2004 and on 02.06.2004, Bir Singh had come to their house and PW-1 alongwith deceased Rekha and her daughter had gone to house of Bir Singh. Thereafter his daughter was residing at her matrimonial home and during intervening period when PW-1 had come to inquire well being of his daughter then deceased Rekha had informed him that all family members of in-law’s used to beat her and were asking to construct a separate house. PW-1 Ranjit Singh had advised in-law’s of his daughter on that day also. 9. It has been further stated by PW-1 in the statement that PW-14 Sukhbir Singh had informed him that his ailing daughter had been taken to Mehta Hospital Pathankot upon which he alongwith his brother Joginder and wife had reached at Mehta Hospital Pathankot where they came to know that his daughter Rekha had expired and had been taken back by her in-laws to their house. He alongwith his relatives had reached Bharnoli and telephonically informed police at Indora regarding the incident. On reaching at house of Bir Singh, he found his daughter lying dead in the room having bluish bruises on her body near left ear, left cheek, left side of lips and left eye. On inquiry from villagers he had come to know that when Prem Singh and Pawan Singh were passing outside the house of respondents in the night of 13.08.2004 at about 8:00/9:00 PM they had heard cries and weeping of his daughter and had also heard loud voices of Bir Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Surekha Devi. His daughter was being harassed by behaviour of all these persons and they have killed his daughter by beating in the night on 13.08.2004. 10. In his deposition in the Court PW-1, Ranjit Singh has reiterated version of his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ext. His daughter was being harassed by behaviour of all these persons and they have killed his daughter by beating in the night on 13.08.2004. 10. In his deposition in the Court PW-1, Ranjit Singh has reiterated version of his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ext. PW-1/A, but has not uttered even a single word regarding beating of deceased Rekha by her in law’s. Rather he has specifically stated that accused used to mentally torture and harass his daughter on the pretext that she should bring money from her parents. However, he did not give any money to his daughter to be handed over to her in-laws. In his statement in the Court, he has made material improvement stating that in-law’s of his daughter, were not maintaining her and not even paying expenses to meet daily necessities of her life and due to this he had opened an account in the post office in the name of deceased by depositing Rs. 75,000/- from where deceased was getting Rs. 500/- per month as interest to meet out necessities of her life. It has been further stated that her mother- in-law respondent No.4 Bimla had taken all ornaments from deceased Rekha and had kept them under lock and was not allowing his daughter to wear all those ornaments belonging to his daughter. It has also been deposed by him in the Court that in the month of July, 2004 on his visit to the house of respondents, his daughter had told him that all respondents had separated her and they prepare food for themselves and she prepared food for herself and for this reason his daughter was disturbed and the respondents used to taunt and ill-treat her without any reasons. Therefore, he had requested respondent Bir Singh not to misbehave but they had not acceded to his request. He had also sent his son Gaurav and daughter PW-16 Snehlata to inquire about deceased Rekha Devi and both of them had stayed in the house of deceased Rekha Devi on 10.08.2004 and had returned on next day. They had told him that deceased Rekha was not happy at her in-laws house. 11. In cross examination, he has admitted that prior to incident respondent Surekha was living with her husband at the place of his posting. He has admitted that for business of respondent Rajesh, respondent Bir Singh had invested his money. They had told him that deceased Rekha was not happy at her in-laws house. 11. In cross examination, he has admitted that prior to incident respondent Surekha was living with her husband at the place of his posting. He has admitted that for business of respondent Rajesh, respondent Bir Singh had invested his money. He has also admitted that his daughter had completed M.A. after marriage and she wanted to do M.Phil and she kept on improving marks by appearing in examination. It has also been admitted by him that respondent Bir Singh had built two houses, one having slate roof and another having lintel and his daughter was living in Pucca house and on 14.08.2004 there was heavy rain during the day time as well as in the previous night. He has admitted that it had come in his knowledge that when his daughter had fallen ill she was taken to private clinic immediately and thereafter to Mehta Hospital Pathankot and PW-14 Sukhbir Singh was sent by respondents to inform them about illness of his daughter. He has admitted that Sukhbir Singh had reached their house in the morning time at 4:00/5:00 A.M., He has also admitted that a joint FD in the name of his daughter had matured after the marriage of his daughter Rekha Devi. He has admitted that deceased Rekha was sensitive in nature and both his son-in-law and daughter were unemployed. He has also admitted that distance of place of Moki was one Km. from his house and his daughter wanted to live at that place for which respondent Bir Singh was not agreeing. He has also admitted that visit of his son and daughter to the house of Bir Singh on 10.08.2004 and coming back on 11.08.2004 was also not stated by him in any statement before the police. He has admitted that after registration of case, family members in-law’s of his daughter were behind the bars and for that reason SHO had handed over custody of child of deceased to him. 12. PW-2, Om Prakash, maternal uncle of the deceased has deposed almost to the same effect except making addition that PW-1 Ranjit Singh had told him that respondents were also physically torturing deceased Rekha Devi for demand of dowry. 12. PW-2, Om Prakash, maternal uncle of the deceased has deposed almost to the same effect except making addition that PW-1 Ranjit Singh had told him that respondents were also physically torturing deceased Rekha Devi for demand of dowry. He has stated that fact regarding bearing of expenses for studies of Rekha Devi by PW-1 on asking of respondents, subjecting deceased to mental and physical torture on the pretext of dowry and meeting out necessities of life by deceased with Rs. 500/- per month received from post office Indora and non- payment for maintenance to deceased Rekha by her in laws were told to him by her brother in-law PW-1 Ranjit Singh. He has admitted that after marriage of deceased Rekha Devi she had completed her MA. He has admitted that deceased Rekha and Rajesh were highly educated but were unemployed. He has admitted that PW-1 had not made telephonic call to Rajesh Kumar nor Rajesh Kumar had refused to Rekha Devi in his presence. In contradiction to version of PW-1 Ranjit Singh, he had denied that deceased Rekha Devi was of sensitive nature. 13. PW-4, Arjun Singh, is another maternal uncle of deceased Rekha Devi. He has also deposed to the same effect. He has admitted that Rekha Devi was residing at Dharamshala in rented accommodation during her studies in M.A. He has shown ignorance about completion of M.A. in March 2004. He has admitted that he had neither visited Dharamshala during the course of her studies nor the house of respondents during life time of deceased Rekha Devi. 14. PW-6, Udham Singh, is a witness, who has stated to have accompanied PW-1 Ranjit Singh and PW-2 Om Prakash to the house of respondents after birth of a child of deceased Rekha Devi. He has added new grounds stating that Bir Singh had flatly refused to bring deceased Rekha Devi back on the pretext that she did not work. He has further added that respondent Rajesh had stated that out of 9 lacs of loan amount he had returned 7 lacs and remaining 2 lacs was yet to be repaid and this witness had inferred that respondent Rajesh was asking for payment of Rs. 2 lacs. These facts have not been stated by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. He has further added that respondent Rajesh had stated that out of 9 lacs of loan amount he had returned 7 lacs and remaining 2 lacs was yet to be repaid and this witness had inferred that respondent Rajesh was asking for payment of Rs. 2 lacs. These facts have not been stated by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. This witness has stated that subsequent to their visit to house of respondents, respondent Bir Singh had come to take Rekha Devi and had taken her with him. Contrary to statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, this witness has stated that deceased was not pursuing M.A. study after marriage and also was not residing in rented accommodation at Dharamshala. He has also denied that deceased was of sensitive nature, whereas PW-1 has stated that his daughter was of sensitive nature. 15. PW-10, Kirpal Singh, has stated that he knew respondents who were harassing deceased as respondents wanted to get rid off deceased Rekha Devi. After hearing about death of deceased Rekha Devi, he had visited house of respondents and on inquiry from Pawan Singh and Prem Singh who were present there, they had told him that on previous night both of them were going to watch T.V. and when crossing from outside of house of respondents, they had heard cries of deceased Rekha Devi and loud voices of Bir Singh, Rajesh and Bimla. 16. In cross examination, PW-10 Kirpal Singh has admitted that he had contested election of BDC member in the year 2003 and respondent Rajesh had contested against him but he had won the contest and Rajesh had received highest votes next to him. He has admitted that in those days respondent Rajesh was Vice President of Panchayat and this witness had lost elections, however, he has clarified that he had not lost elections against respondent Rajesh. 17. PW-10 Kirpal Singh has further stated that parents of Rekha Devi had complained to him that in laws of deceased are of greedy type but he had not informed to Police after receiving such complaints. He has been confronted with statement made before police wherein regarding making of complaint by PW-1 is not mentioned. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-16 had not uttered even a single word about making any complaint oral or in writing to PW-10 Kirpal Singh. 18. He has been confronted with statement made before police wherein regarding making of complaint by PW-1 is not mentioned. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-16 had not uttered even a single word about making any complaint oral or in writing to PW-10 Kirpal Singh. 18. PW-10 Kirpal Singh has also admitted that after her marriage, deceased Rekha Devi was pursuing her studies by residing in rented accommodation and on holidays deceased Rekha used to stay in her in-laws’ house. 19. PW-16, Sneh Lata is sister of deceased Rekha Devi. She had deposed in similar manner like other witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, but has also stated that respondent had told them that separate house be built for Rekha Devi and on failing they had threatened for divorce. She has stated that her deceased sister Rekha had told that respondent had been harassing and beating her and had been compelling her to bring dowry. She has deposed that respondent had made separate arrangements for Rekha in separate house where she was cooking her separate food and all the respondents were ill-treating her sister in the house. In cross examination she has admitted that before her death deceased Rekha was doing M.A. and had also been appearing for improvement in examination. During her stay at Dharamshala, when this witness was staying with her sister Rekha Devi, respondent Rajesh had visited Dharamshala. She has admitted that respondents were residing in slate roofed house and her sister deceased Rekha was residing in (Pucca) house having lintel. 20. PW-7 Arun Katoch is a witness to the disclosure statement Ext. PW-9/A of respondent Bimla Devi and Statement of Rajesh PW-9/B. This witness has not supported prosecution case and has stated that he and PW-9 Manjit Singh had gone to Police Station Indora in connection with personal work but Bimla Devi and Rajesh had not disclosed anything to police in their presence and he was asked by SHO to put his signatures just for the sake of formality. He was subjected to cross examination. Nothing could be extracted in favour of prosecution except admitting his signature on Ex.PW-7/A, Ex.PW-7/C, Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B. 21. PW-9, Manjeet Singh has stated that disclosure statements Ex. PW-9/A and PW-9/B were made by respondents Bimla Devi and Rajesh Kumar, respectively in presence of Arun Kumar and this witness. He was subjected to cross examination. Nothing could be extracted in favour of prosecution except admitting his signature on Ex.PW-7/A, Ex.PW-7/C, Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B. 21. PW-9, Manjeet Singh has stated that disclosure statements Ex. PW-9/A and PW-9/B were made by respondents Bimla Devi and Rajesh Kumar, respectively in presence of Arun Kumar and this witness. In his cross examination he has admitted that Arun Kumar is a friend of SHO and was known to him but he has denied that he was called by SHO and was asked to sign already written statement of respondents Bimla and Rajesh. 22. PW-13, Vijay Singh, is a witness to recovery of clothes of deceased at the instance of Bimla vide Memo Ext. PW-13/A and also recovery of writing on paper Ex. P-4 at the instance of respondent Rajesh and register Ext. P-5 at the instance of respondent Rajesh vide memo Ext. PW-13/B. This witness has also identified clothes. This witness has stated that police had also taken photographs of room of Rekha Devi which as per respondents was broken by them with kick blows. Respondent Rajesh Singh has also signed memo Ext. PW-13/B. This witness has admitted that one Savitri Devi is neighbourer of respondent and Savitri Devi told that she called by respondents during mid night by saying that deceased Rekha had been vomiting. Savitri Devi had told them that she had changed filthy clothes of deceased and for this reasons she had identified those clothes. PW-Savitri was given up by prosecutor by declaring that she was won over by the accused and she was not examined in the Court. 23. PW-14 Sukhbir Singh is owner of Van, who had accompanied respondents for taking deceased Rekha to hospital on asking of respondent Bir Singh on 13.08.2004 at about 10:00/11:30 PM. He stated that when he told Bir Singh that it would not be possible to drive vehicle up to his house for bad condition of approach to their house, respondent Bir Singh had asked him to take his vehicle to the point up to which road condition was good for driving and rest of distance was covered by him in his own car. Bir Singh, Rajesh, his mother and Surekha had gone to hospital with deceased. They had come to know that deceased Rekha had consumed poisonous tablets kept for protecting grains in the house. Bir Singh, Rajesh, his mother and Surekha had gone to hospital with deceased. They had come to know that deceased Rekha had consumed poisonous tablets kept for protecting grains in the house. Accused Rajesh had lifted Rekha and made her to sit in his car and at that time respondent Bimla was also sitting in the car. Bir Singh and Karnail Singh were in his vehicle. Firstly they had visited a private doctor at Rehan and thereafter visited to Mehta Hospital Pathankot. He was sent by respondent Rajesh to inform someone but telephone booth of STD was closed and then he had gone to Railway Station for making calls but he could not make a call because of rush and when he came back and informed Rajesh about this then Rajesh Singh had instructed him to go to house of his in-laws to inform them about illness of Reka and he had gone to the house of in-laws of respondent Rajesh and informed them about the occurrence upon which they accompanied him to Pathankot in the morning and on reaching Mehta Hospital at Pathankot, it was found that Rekha had expired and had been taken by respondents to their house and therefore, he had taken parents of Rekha to the house of respondents. He has admitted that on that day, it was raining. 24. PW-15, Rano Devi, Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat has proved on record, copy of family register of Gram Panchayat of the respondent Ext. PW-15/C in which families of respondents Rajesh and Bir Singh and Pawan had been shown living separately. 25. PW-11, Om Prakash, is running his own clinic at Rehan. He has stated that on the intervening night of 13/14.08.2004 at about 1:00/1:50 AM respondent Rajesh Singh had came and complained about stomach pain and unconsciousness of his wife with the request to examine her. After examination of deceased he had advised Rajesh Singh to take her to the hospital being a poison case. 26. PW-12, Doctor R.K. Mehta is owner of Mehta Nursing Home, on Dhangu Road Pathankot. He has examined deceased Rekha and had advised respondent to take her to Government hospital. Respondent had stayed in his clinic about 15-20 minutes and during that time he had only recorded blood pressure and pulses of deceased Rekha and he had not noticed any other injury. He has examined deceased Rekha and had advised respondent to take her to Government hospital. Respondent had stayed in his clinic about 15-20 minutes and during that time he had only recorded blood pressure and pulses of deceased Rekha and he had not noticed any other injury. He had stated that being a case of poison, he had advised him to take her to the Govt. Hospital. He has stated that he had intimated SHO Indora vide Ext. PW-12/A. 27. PW-18 Doctor, M.K. Saxena has conducted postmortem of body of deceased on 14.08.2004. Postmortem report is Ext. PW-18/B. Belongings of the deceased, her viscera and docket were sealed by him and handed over to police for necessary action. He has noticed following injuries on body of deceased:- 1. Bluish bruise with swelling around left eye swelling and bruise also present on lateral side of left eye brow to left pinnate. 2. A bluish swelling merely 6x4 cm present over left side of cheek. 3. A bluish bruise with swelling over left side of upper and lower lips on upper surface. 4. Bluish bruise with small lacerated wound present over inner surface of left side of both lines. 28. As per opinion of PW-18, injuries mentioned by him can be caused by kicks and blows. He has denied that these injuries can be caused by fall of a person during course of vomiting on portion on the ground. He has admitted that cause of death was due to consuming poison. He has not stated whether injuries were grievous or simple in nature. 29. PW-22, Dr. Meenakshi, Assistant Director, State Forensic Science, Lab Junga has stated that she had compared hand writing of Ex. P4 with admitted handwriting of deceased Rekha Ex. P5 containing leaves from Ex. P5/1 to P-5/85. After examination of handwriting of questioned document Ex. P-4 and admitted hand writing contained in Ex. P-5, she had opined that both the documents were written by one of the same person. She was not cross examined by defence counsel. 30. PW-3, Roshan Lal, has taken photographs Ex.PW- 3/A-1 to PW-3/A-9. Photographs Ex.PW-3/A-1 to Ex.PW-3/A-5 are of broken latch of door. PW-13 has stated in his examination in chief that police had also taken photographs of latch of room of Rekha Devi as respondent Rajesh had stated that said latch had broken by him with kicks and blows. Photographs Ext. 30. PW-3, Roshan Lal, has taken photographs Ex.PW- 3/A-1 to PW-3/A-9. Photographs Ex.PW-3/A-1 to Ex.PW-3/A-5 are of broken latch of door. PW-13 has stated in his examination in chief that police had also taken photographs of latch of room of Rekha Devi as respondent Rajesh had stated that said latch had broken by him with kicks and blows. Photographs Ext. PW3/A-6 to PW-3/A-8 are of Bimla Devi with clothes and photographs from Ext. PW3-A/10 to PW-3/A-12 are of dead body of deceased Rekha Devi. 31. PW-8 Hakam Singh, who is also a photographer, had taken photographs Ex. PW-3/A-1 to Ex. PW-3/A-9 and after developing these photographs he had handed over the same to the police. Negatives of these photographs are Ex. PW-8/A-1 to Ex. PW-8/A-9. 32. PW-5, Kulbir Singh, is a witness to search of house of respondents Bir Singh and room of the deceased in which she used to sleep. He has stated that the police had searched Almirah of the said room and had recovered one plastic container containing of Aluminum phosphide vide memo Ex. PW-5/A. 33. PW-17, Harbans Lal, Patwari, who had supplied Jamabandi Ex. PW-17/8 and Aks Sajra Ex. PW-17/C, which were taken by the police vide memo Ex. PW-17/D. PW-20, Constable Shashi Pal had taken sealed parcels for depositing the same in FSL Junga. PW-21, HHC Surjit Singh, had brought statement of Ranjit Singh Ex. PW1/A to police station Indora for registration of FIR and had taken back case file to the Investigating Officer. PW-23 Manohar Lal, has submitted application Ex.PW-18/A for postmortem of dead body of deceased Rekha Devi. 34. Prosecution has relied upon writing on paper Ex. P-4 against respondents. But perusal of contents of this document does not reveal or indicate anything from which writing can be inferred as cruelty subjected by respondents to the deceased. There is nothing suggestive in this writing to infer it as a proof of guilt of respondents. Though it indicates that deceased was, at the time of writing this paper, in the process of thinking to commit suicide but for what reason, that is not disclosed in this writing. There may be so many reasons for committing suicide by women such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment for achieving goal in life, tired of domestic worries, or chronic ailment etc. and suicide cannot be always due to abetment by anyone. 35. There may be so many reasons for committing suicide by women such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment for achieving goal in life, tired of domestic worries, or chronic ailment etc. and suicide cannot be always due to abetment by anyone. 35. Deceased was a highly educated women having ambition to pursue further studies and unless permitted by her in-laws, it was not possible for deceased to live at Dharamshala after marriage for continuation of her studies and also to prepare and appear for improvement of scores after completion of M.A. Desire of deceased in writing Ex.P-4 for bringing up her daughter by her parents and to give her dowry and money to her daughter after her death does not suggest that this writing on paper is an indication much less a conclusive proof to hold that deceased had committed suicide because of abetment by respondents. 36. Recovery of clothes at the instance of respondent Bimla is also doubtful as the witness in whose presence it is stated to be recovered has admitted that one Savitri was also there at that time who had disclosed that there was vomiting on the clothes of deceased and, therefore, her filthy clothes were changed. It also appears to be natural that before leaving for hospital no one would move with filthy clothes, especially with clothes having vomiting. Otherwise, also recovery of clothes of daughter-in-law at the instance of mother-in-law from house is not a proof of abetment of suicide or cruelty. 37. PW-18 Doctor M.K. Saxena has noticed four bruises on the left side of face of deceased and has opined that these injuries were not possible by fall but definitely caused by fist and kick blows. But he has not mentioned that whether these injuries were grave in nature or simple in nature. 38. As per Section 498-A cruelty means any willful conduct it is of a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life limb or health or mental or physical of women. It has also come in the statement of PW-13 Vijay that the police had also taken photographs of room which the accused had told that was broken by him with kick and blows. Those photographs are Ex.PW-3/A-1 to PW-3/A-5. It has also come in the statement of PW-13 Vijay that the police had also taken photographs of room which the accused had told that was broken by him with kick and blows. Those photographs are Ex.PW-3/A-1 to PW-3/A-5. It indicates that after consumption of poison deceased bolted her room from inside and for opening the door respondents had to use force to break the latch. Further conduct of respondent is also admitted by prosecution witness that respondent had taken deceased immediately to private Clinic and then to hospital despite having rains during the night. In this situation when the deceased had consumed poison and bolted the door from inside and may be vomiting and the door was opened by breaking latch with kick and blows, possibility of slapping to deceased cannot be ruled out which may have caused bruises in left side of face of deceased. There are no other injuries on any part of body of deceased. It is unnatural that one was beaten with kicks and first but bruises are only left side of face. There is no previous incident of beating deceased by respondents. Such a isolated instance, that too, in peculiar circumstance, cannot be treated as cruelty. 39. No doubt, deceased had committed suicide within seven years of the marriage but the said fact itself is not sufficient to convict the respondents under Section 306 IPC. Presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act will not automatically apply to case of committing suicide by a married women within a period of seven years of her marriage. For attracting presumption under Section 113-A cruelty on the part of her husband or any relative of her husband is to be established on record in that eventuality the provisions of Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act may be attracted having regard to all other circumstances of the case so as to presume that deceased has been abetted by her husband or his relatives to commit suicide. 40. Meaning of cruelty has been given in two clauses of explanation to Section 498-A IPC. For attracting clause (a) of explanation, prosecution has to establish any willful conduct on the part of accused which is of such a nature as is likely to drive women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life limb or health (whether mentally or physically) of a women. For attracting clause (a) of explanation, prosecution has to establish any willful conduct on the part of accused which is of such a nature as is likely to drive women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life limb or health (whether mentally or physically) of a women. As per clause (b) Explanation, cruelty means harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coerce woman by husband or any person related to her husband to meet any lawful demand for any property or valuable security or on failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 41. In the statement of witnesses of prosecution in present case, no willful conduct of such a nature as likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide has been established. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is sketchy and general in nature which cannot be considered sufficient to hold that respondent had subjected deceased to cruelty so as to force her to commit suicide. 42. There is nothing on record to establish any specific demand for any property or valuable security on behalf of respondents therefore, cruelty as explained in clause (b) of explanation of 498-A is not attracted in present case. 43. On scrutiny of evidence, it transpires that deceased was allowed to complete her M.A and also to appear in examination for improvement of her score in examination so as enabling her to pursue her studies in M.Phil and she was also allowed to stay at Dharamshala for the purpose of studies after marriage. It is admitted by PW-1 father though denied by maternal uncles PW-2 and PW-4 that deceased was sensitive in nature. It is also admitted that couple was highly educated but was unemployed and Bir Singh father in-law of deceased had invested his money for establishing business of his son Rajesh, husband of deceased. There is no specific instance of demanding dowry or specific demand raised by respondents in evidence led by prosecution. Despite material improvement of PW-1 in his statement made in the Court, there is nothing to establish that there was a willful conduct on the part of respondents of such a nature which is likely to drive deceased to commit suicide. 44. Despite material improvement of PW-1 in his statement made in the Court, there is nothing to establish that there was a willful conduct on the part of respondents of such a nature which is likely to drive deceased to commit suicide. 44. PW-1 in his statement in the Court has alleged only mental cruelty and whereas other witnesses have stated about beating deceased by respondent but not even a single instance has been quoted in the statement of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 and PW-16 or any other witness. 45. PW-1 has admitted that his daughter wanted to live at place Moki, at a distance of 1 km. from her parental house for which her father-in-law Bir Singh was not agreeing. On the contrary, PW-16 Sneh Lata has stated that in-laws of deceased were asking them to construct a separate house for deceased. It has also come in her evidence that deceased was living in a Pucca house having lintel whereas other family members of Bir Singh were living in slate posh house. 46. PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that respondents were physically torturing deceased Rekha Devi by raising demand of dowry. But they had not pointed out any specific instance of such torturing and demand. 47. The allegation of not bearing any expenses to meet necessities of life of deceased Rekha Devi by respondents, opening of an account in the name of his daughter and maintenance of deceased with the help of interest of Rs. 500/- per month, keeping of all ornaments belongings of deceased by respondent Bimla under lock, not permitting his daughter to wear her ornaments and facts that Om Prakash had advised him to remain silent till delivery of child had been deposed by PW-1 in the Court for the first time and were not disclosed in any statement before the police. 48. There is no evidence against respondent No. 3. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned there is no allegation against her also except that she had kept ornaments of deceased under lock in her possession and was not allowing deceased to wear her ornaments. No particular instance against respondent No. 2 has been quoted. 48. There is no evidence against respondent No. 3. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned there is no allegation against her also except that she had kept ornaments of deceased under lock in her possession and was not allowing deceased to wear her ornaments. No particular instance against respondent No. 2 has been quoted. Even if, statements of witnesses are considered to be sufficient to prove prosecution case, then also all alleged instances of leaving deceased, not agreeing to take her back and taking her back and talks with respondents have been narrated to be by and at the instance of or with Bir Singh who has expired during the pendency of appeal. 49. In light of above discussion, there is no sufficient evidence on record to hold that respondents-accused have committed offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It cannot be said that learned trial court has not appreciated evidence appropriately and completely and acquittal of respondent-accused has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. 50. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon prosecution. Respondents-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court after considering arguments of respective counsel for the parties and minutely examining the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record. In view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. 51. The present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, as also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by respondents-accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back immediately. 52. Taking into consideration entire evidence on record we are of the view that prosecution has not succeeding in establish the offence under Section 498-A and 306 IPC against the respondents.